join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Brownfield v. City of Yakima, No. 09-35628 (9th Cir. Jul. 27, 2010)

Articles Discussing Case:

Fitness-For-Duty Exam Can Be Based On Concern About Employee’s “Volatile” Behavior.

Ogletree Deakins • August 16, 2010
The Americans with Disabilities Act allows an employer to require an employee to undergo a Fitness For Duty Examination (FFDE) when health problems have had a substantial or injurious impact on an employee’s job performance. Such examination must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held – as an issue of first impression for that Court - that an employer also can require an employee to undergo such exam as a “preemptive” measure against potential dangerous or harmful conduct, especially when the employee is engaged in dangerous work.

Fitness-for-duty exam can be based on concern about employee's "volatile" behavior.

Ogletree Deakins • August 10, 2010
The Americans with Disabilities Act allows an employer to require an employee to undergo a Fitness For Duty Examination (FFDE) when health problems have had a substantial or injurious impact on an employee’s job performance. Such examination must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held – as an issue of first impression for that Court - that an employer also can require an employee to undergo such exam as a “preemptive” measure against potential dangerous or harmful conduct, especially when the employee is engaged in dangerous work.